What’s the connection between the “Occupy” movement and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What positions are Jewish activists in particular taking on this issue? In this video report, activists from “Occupy Oakland” – a rabbi, a queer Muslim, a Palestinian refugee, a Gaza Freedom March participant, and others – share their stories and perspectives.
“End Human Bankruptcy”an idea whose time has come.
We are the Peoples of the World.Peoples who are talking to Peoples.
We are the Men,Women and Children.
Hear US now.We don’t want or need Political Lip Service.We are Speaking to You.
The solution remains as it has been for a long time: two states living side by side in peace. I don’t think that this one-sided argumentation advances this goal. For example, there is no acknowledgment here of Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, of the fact that a racist anti-Jewish movement won the Palestinian election in 2006 and then seized total power in Gaza in a violent coup in 2007.
And there is no recognition that the people of southern Israel have been under frequent attack from Gaza since that withdrawal. Violence begets violence. This conflict is a two-way street and this one-sided presentation (albeit well intentioned) does not advance a humane and fair resolution.
Ralph,
A correction! Hamas, as you rightly noted, won in a democratic election. False, they did not take over in a coup. Fatah, pushed by the U.S. and Israel, – and not prepared – attempted a violent overthrow of Hamas. As you know Fatah was soundly defeated.
Secondly, we have gone over the past umpteen times. The present is what counts. The Palestinians’ under Abbas, have evolved to a clearer understanding of themselves as a people and therefore with basic rights. They presently pursue their dream of statehood in a non-violent manner hoping for a partner that will negotiate in good faith, It is also clear to this writer that Hamas has signaled a willingness to be on board with a settlement that brought the Palestinian people justice.
The major obstacle to this is the persistence of Israel in continuing to create Eretz Israel from lands that belong to the Palestinians.
There are two sides,yes, but they are not at all equal. The State of Israel should not have occupied the Negev, the Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights. I’ve been to Israel, Lebanon, the West Bank. It is in many, many ways comparable to South Africa during apartheid. The tragedy is that no Mandela has arisen so far to make a real peace for both sides. The real question that needs to be asked at this time is this: Should the government of any state give an “established” status to religious practice of any religion, i.e. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism? Is there not ultimately a profound contradiction between the existence of a State and the operation of a religion? I think the ultimate answer may be in not giving an “established” status to any religion, but using government to simply express a peoples physical/economic needs and leaving religion to personal practice. I know this is not an easy subject, and I state this with ambivalence, but the comments already here reveal a deep division, and I feel a pain for which I don’t have an answer.
Dear Rev Willems:
I don’t know why you include the Negev in this list of territories that you wish Israel had not occupied. It’s been part of Israel since at least 1949.
As for establishing a religion with a state, shouldn’t you suggest that Islam be disestablished from virtually all 22 Arab states, not to mention Iran? But this conflict is really ethnic and national, between the Jews as a people (one of the oldest nations in the world – read your bible) and the Arab peoples.
There generally is a kind of segregation between Arabs and Jews in Israel, but unlike under apartheid, it is not a legally-mandated separation and it is not total. Also unlike apartheid, Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel (as opposed to the Occupied Territories) equally have the right to vote and to run for public office.
Ralph
That is precisely what I am saying, no states where religion is established. not one. Most of the Negev was gained in the Six days war. Yes, the northern part of Israel, but what was ceded back to Egypt was not. Despite the fact that there is nearly as many arabs as Jews in Israel, if you look at the Israeli Parliament you will no doubt notice there is not a parity in representatives. No member of the Israeli Cabinet has been Arab. That is Apartheid.
All of the Apartheid moves in the West Bank were legally voted by the Israeli Parliament. The Arabs in Israel do not see a big difference between living in Israel, in the Gaza, or in the West Bank. Yes the legal rights of those is Israel are more nuanced. The legal rights of Arabs in the West Bank are almost non existent. Their homes can be expropriated at any time, their movement is heavily restricted, and they can be help indefinitely without a formal charge. That’s Apartheid.
The struggle here is between a population that mostly emigrated from Europe and Russia and Arabs who have lived continuously in the region for two thousand years. The locals did not decide to create the Israel State (or for that matter most of the Arab countries), Europe did. Therein lies the problem for both Arabs and Jews. Trying to live in a coloring book whose lines were drawn by Europe.
Dear Rev. Willems,
Your understanding of the facts is flawed. The Negev belonged to Israel after the armistice agreement that ended the war of 1948.
About 80% of Israel’s population is considered Jewish. The Arabs of Israel have three political parties that are predominantly Arab, and at least two or three Arabs have served in the Cabinet (but not enough). And there is a big difference between the rights enjoyed by Arab citizens of Israel as opposed to those of non-citizens who live under occupation.
About half of Israel’s Jewish population originates from the Arab world, from which about 800,000 were expelled in the 1950s and 1960s. The European-origin population of Israel are survivors of centuries of persecution or discrimination in the Christian world, not to mention the Holocaust. (Intermarriage between these two segments of Israel’s Jewish population is high.)
Europe did not fight for Israel’s survival in 1948, 1967, nor in 1973. The problem began with European antisemitism, but it has gone far beyond the time of colonialism. The solution voted back in 1947 by the UN (not just Europe) of two states for two peoples– with protections for minorities– is still available, if only both parties would fully grasp it.
The question of whether the relationship between Israel and Palestinians is one of oppression or one of conflict, is a critical question.
There is no question in my mind that there are elements of both. To declare that the relationship is only an oppression is to misrepresent what is going on there.
There are two ways the issue is not simplistic.
One is that as Ralph referred, there is a long long long history of one stimuli (say from 1920), evoking a response (in 1921), which then evokes another response the other way in 1922, etc. ad infinitum, hotter at some times, quieter at others. Everyone says that the other started it.
In a circle.
The second is of the geography. If one looks at only one scale, Palestine is surrounded by Israel. There are only borders with Israel and Jordan, and Israel jointly controls the Jordan boundaries.
But, at a slightly larger scale, Israel is surrounded by Arab states. Until 1979, they were entirely surrounded, and with a great deal of animosity. Now that there are treaties in place with Jordan and Egypt, and cooperation on security with the PA, that logic is diminished. But, at the same time, the experience of Iraq firing missiles at Tel Aviv in the fist Gulf War, even though Israel was not a party to the conflict, adds weight to the importance of Iran being able to repeat that (with either active nuclear missiles – in the future, or merely with nuclear waste now)., multiplied by their near-proxy relationship with Hezbollah possessing tens of thousands of large rockets all aimed at Israeli cities as a hostage.
The statement that Israel surrounds Palestine is partially true. Not perfectly true, not perfectly false, and the statement that Israel oppresses Palestine is also partially true, not perfectly true, and not perfectly false.
How does one change a conflict? (Maybe with intervention to get everyone’s attention, but ultimately with mediation, not with revolution.)
Also, the Negev has been part of Israel since the original UN ratified partition in November of 1947.
As to the question “What’s the connection between the “Occupy” movement and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?” – the only real “connection” is that a number of small local organizations that have particular perspectives in the I/P conflict have asked their members and friends and contacts to meet at the site of the local “Occupy” protest/occupation {e.g., Boston}, and participate in their own demonstration/protest. But then a lot of diverse groups are going to these local “Occupy” sites to do their own thing. They are neither supported by nor opposed by the local “Occupy” groups, which from what I can tell don’t have any means by which to either support or oppose these activities. When the Jewish Labor Committee marched as part of a New York City rally of trade unionists and others in support of the “occupy” protesters, we met a few folks marching there who were speaking about some someaht obsure economic proposal. Turned out they were Lyndon LaRouche folks, and they had a table with their stuff. What’s the connection between the “Occupy” movement and the Lyndon LaRouche folks?
I pick this up after Arieh Lebowitz 11/6 at 9:04 PM. Let us not forget, or perhaps realize that the jewish
people were effectively chased around and forced from their homeland in the land of Israel before the appearance of Christ. They have subsequently been persecuted and forced from locale to locale for thousands of years. The League of Nations provided a means for the Zionists to settle freely in the land of Israel in the early 1920’s and as a prelude to the UN’s actions after WWII. Israel is less than 1/1000th of the land area of the Middle East, are less than 1/1000th of the population of the Middle East and they have no oil. In spite of this they have repeatedly and successfully defended themselves from military attacks from their neighbors a feat for which they are being held to account. After all of this the Jewish people continue and thrive. Medicine, the sciences and the arts are all advanced on a regular basis by those of jewish heritage. The Palestinians are held in their circumstance not by Israel but by the Arabs and Western Europeans who are mired in an ancient and irrational fear. They, we, would be far ahead to take Israel as a partner in research and commerce.
Gees. some bunch of weirdoes you’ve got here at Tikkun. Peter Gluck, who starts his political argument “before the appearance of Christ” and ends it with European commerce; Arieh Lebowitz, who apparently watched a whole video with demonstrators that make the connection between the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the Occupy movement, but still insists that there is no such connection; then Ralph Seliger who rants about cliches straight from Sunday school.
If this is what zionism can offer, it’s apparently in real trouble.
Dear “WTF?” I don’t know what you mean by calling us “wierdos”. And why do you assume we’re all “Zionists”. Do you even know what a Zionist is?
I like and appreciate very much your political and/or social positions with respect to many areas of the world. Could you, in future, organize a trip to Israel and be able to help and be in contact with the people of Israel, whom I wish the best in the world but also the Palestianian territories and also see them, talk to them and give them the hope of unity and peace. Please keep me posted if such a trip (a week of more) is possible for 2012.
Good luck and keep up the good work,
Luis Vazquez